0
$\begingroup$

I'm just reading through the definition of a ring and it says that "A ring is the triple (R,+,•) where R is a set and +,• are binary operations".

Does • imply multiplication since for R to be a ring we require associativity of multiplication and the existence of a multiplicative inverse?

Or can it be another binary operation yet those two conditions still hold (despite multiplication not being a binary operation)?

Thank you!

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ +,• are just suggestive symbols for these binary operations, you might as well use a square and a blue triangle. The important thing is that these binary operations have the properties postulatd thereafter $\endgroup$ – Hagen von Eitzen May 6 '18 at 7:36
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Incidentally, we don't require the existence of multiplicative inverses in a ring. $\endgroup$ – Eric Wofsey May 6 '18 at 7:36
3
$\begingroup$

The operations $+$ and $\cdot$ can be any binary operations on the set $R$, as long as they satisfy all the ring axioms. They don't have to be the operations we normally call "addition" and "multiplication" on $R$, if such operations exist. However, in the context of the ring $(R,+,\cdot)$, we usually refer to $+$ as "addition" and $\cdot$ as "multiplication". So when we speak of "associativity of multiplication", for instance, we are actually talking about associativity of the operation $\cdot$, whatever it happens to be.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Ahhh! okay thank you! I was under the impression the addition was a must (in terms of how we think about it in the reals) - that was just my mistake for misinterpreting my lecture notes. Thank you very much! $\endgroup$ – BigWig May 6 '18 at 7:40

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.